1985 P (PLP)

(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 497 & 498‑‑Penal Code (XLV Of 1860), Ss. 302, 307, 148 & 149‑‑Complainant making supplementary statement that accused had fired a shot at deceased hitting his forearm‑‑No overt act attributed to accused in F.I.R. itself‑‑Bail granted in circumstances. Ehtesham Qadir Shah for Petitioners. Muhammad Asghar for the State. Zahid Hussain Khan for the Complainant. Abdur Rehman and Muhammad Amir petitioners have moved this petition for bail in a case registered against them and others under sections 148, 302 and 307/149, P.P.C. Their co‑accused Sher Bahadur has filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 889‑B of 1985 for bail. Both these petitions shall be disposed of by this order.

2. The occurrence took place on 31st August, 1984. According to the F.I.R., Riaz complainant suffered fire‑arm injuries at the hands of Abdur Rehman petitioner and co‑accused Nazir and Haq Nawaz while the deceased was shot at by Sher Bahadur petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for Sher Bahadur petitioner contends that in this case eight crime empties and four guns were recovered. The crime empties matched with guns marked as G.1, G.2 and G.3 allegedly recovered from Nazir and Haq Nawaz accused and Riaz complainant. Fourth gun marked G.4 was recovered from Hayat who is accused of conspiracy and was not present at the spot. It is submitted that no gun was recovered from Sher Bahadur petitioner and the gun allegedly recovered from Hayat and attributed to the petitioner, was not found to have been fired. It is further submitted that according to the F.I.R. Sher Bahadur had fired only one shot at the deceased but the post‑mortem report revealed that he had two wounds of entry, therefore, the case of Sher Bahadur petitioners needs further inquiry. Learned counsel for Abdul Rehman and Muhammad Amir petitioners submits that the case of Abdur Rehman is at par with that of Nazir and Haq Nawaz who have already been admitted to bail and no overt act has been attributed to Muhammad Amir in the F.I.R., therefore, both of them are entitled to the concession of bail. Learned counsel for the complainant and the State have opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that soon after the registration of the case Riaz complainant made supplementary statement to the effect that Muhammad Amir accused had fired a shot at the deceased hitting his forearm, therefore, post‑mortem report is not at variance with the prosecution version. It is contended that specific role have been attributed to the petitioners, therefore, no ground for bail is made out.

4. I have gone through the relevant material and given my careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The fatal shot has been specifically attributed to Sher Bahadur petitioner. The mere fact that no gun was recovered from him or the gun recovered from Hayat was not found to have been fired, does not furnish any ground for the grant of bail. His petition for bail is, therefore, dismissed. Abdul Rehman petitioner is not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased. He allegedly fired at tae complainant and the injury attributed to him was declared simple in nature His case is at par with that of Nazir and Haq Nawaz who have already been admitted to bail by this Court. In the F.I.R. no overt act has been attributed to Muhammad Amir petitioner. Abdul Rehman and) Muhammad Amir petitioners are, therefore, admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Sargodha. H.A.K.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.